| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:21:53 PM | I feel the same way... but again I think you are assuming someone wants no regulation....
One way to do it is to have enough competitors in a regulated industry so that actions favoring one competitor or group will raise objections from among the others
As a small business owner... one would want a conglomerate to be regulated enough to allow others to compete and get a piece of the pie....
But this is also where Unions come in and get their strangle hold on a market not allowing a small business to compete. Unions have killed more small business opportunity than any large businesses have. And they are not for the worker, they are for filling their own pockets, by using their worker.
It's the same with a Modeling agency... They make more than the models they send out... But they get the models jobs.... Independent models can make way more on their own... but the industry they want to work in may be monopolized by the modeling agency. It doesn't seem fair does it?
We are starting to have a problem in this country... at least from the left... of those who make money off of other peoples money... like Wall Street.... But those same people stroke those who make money off of others labor.
So we fight for a minimum wage... for the rights of the people.... but not all people..... now we are fighting for a maximum wage... to tell some people they make too much.... This is fricken ridiculous... Am I alone here? | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:24:00 PM | Thank you for talking about the basis of your claim. Much appreciated.
1. Over the 11-year timespan, the correlation does appear weak. Over a longer timespan, the correlation looks stronger.
2. This is a restatement of #1, and is still a good point. The heat sinks near monitoring stations is a good explanation for the apparent discrepancy in measurements.
3. Good information about the 800 year cycle. It doesn't obviate the possibility that human activities might be accellerating the trend or exacerbating this round of the cycle.
3a. That CO2 has been a trailing indicator is very interesting, and probably the strongest challenge to the GHG/climate change theory. It isn't conclusive, because no one has injected as much CO2 into the atmosphere before. However, it is still suggestive that there is some sort of absorption mechanism we don't yet understand.
4. Those leaders certainly aren't setting a good example, are they?
I favor fuel conservation so that our grandchildren will have some. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:55:09 PM | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
Something to look at.... in general... this tries to dispute the documentary... but the IPCC was a big focus on the documentary... just read how things were worded... and remember... it's wikipedia. The documentary video was great... not sure if it is still around.
But even Houghton of the IPCC agreed that the CO2 followed the warming. He only argued that the documentary tried to make the case that it was key to what the IPCC was making their case on... But was it not Gore's? in his Inconvenient Truth... Remember him up on the lift. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:55:40 PM |
How does this differ from your position that it's OK for a majority to outlaw harmless behavior?
To repeat--that's not my position. The question is whether an activity is "harmless" just because there's no reason to believe it directly harms any identifiable person. That's why I pointed out that American law has always recognized that governments also have a legitimate interest in protecting the body politic in general. And most other countries' laws have always recognized that too. That's why the decision in Lawrence a few years ago was so radical. If local governments can't regulate something like incest, how on earth can they justify something like an architectural review board, to regulate taste? | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:59:29 PM |
I favor fuel conservation so that our grandchildren will have some.
It warms my heart every day to think how much our friends in Tehran are doing to save oil by promoting nuclear energy. It should be obvious they only have electric power plants in mind. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:01:18 PM |
If local governments can't regulate something like incest, how on earth can they justify something like an architectural review board, to regulate taste?
Governments can regulate incest against minors because it violates the rights of those minors. Zoning and land use laws are legitimate because peoples' property values are involved and no one has the right to ruin the value of your property without your consent. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:02:49 PM |
The question is whether an activity is "harmless" just because there's no reason to believe it directly harms any identifiable person. That's why I pointed out that American law has always recognized that governments also have a legitimate interest in protecting the body politic in general.
Sounds like you favor cap & trade then. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:20:52 PM | I didn't say anything about minors. What about a brother and sister who've both voluntarily been sterilized? Why shouldn't even one couple have the right to demand the state law be changed to allow them to marry? Would a neighbor with children think his property was just as valuable, with incest roundtables going on in the backyard most weekends?
Private, unelected individuals on a board have power to deprive me of a property right by imposing their aesthetic values on me, by law? What's the source of that authority, I wonder. And why should these people be able to impose their personal taste on me, even if I could show the house I proposed would actually *increase* the value of other properties nearby? | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:23:27 PM |
Sounds like you favor cap & trade then
Only state governments have any general police powers--not the U.S. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:26:35 PM | Ace you were open minded in reading my post and countered to the effect "we don't know man's contribution, it's never been this high".
Do you know the ercentage of man's contribution to this load? The best numbers I've been able to locate are 880 million tons released into the atmosphere per year, of which 3 million tons are man-made which would equate to somewhere in the neighborhood of .03%.
Fraud science as a basis for remaking an economic system is not reassuring, it makes the right wing paranoics wonder why the left always finds itself on the "control" side of ever issue. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:35:11 PM | Jack a good friend of mine owns the American rights to the BBC documentary you mentioned, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" can be viewed in a 9 part series on you tube. Lord Monkton, the Brit head of environmental science, and President Klaus of Czech Republic and President of EU have tried several times to engage Gore or his 'scientific braintrust" in debate, not surprisingly they dodge such a debate and that was before the left changed the terms to climate change.
Anyone calling it settled science is a fascist or an ignoramous. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 2:58:21 PM | | Cap & trade is regulation of commerce. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/21/2009 8:11:58 PM |
Cap & trade is regulation of commerce.
That may be--I don't know enough about the scheme to say. But I don't see how what I said about states' general police power to maintain orderly communities means I must favor it. I don't spend time studying the details of Mr. Obama's proposals--not much more than I would if Hugo Chavez had dreamed them up.
Once I understand these are statist proposals, that's enough. In this case, I know the purpose is to tax the coal industry out of existence. That's not within Congress's power to tax, as I understand it. | |
|
| Our New President
Posted: 10/22/2009 12:35:52 AM |
Anyone calling it settled science is a fascist or an ignoramous.
Yeah... you have to wonder what's up.... when someone tries to close the book on debate?
Are we hiding something????? | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 7:59:16 AM | Here's your boy in action, contards!
PC World » Business Center » Blogs » BizFeed
Tony Bradley, PC World | Friday, October 23, 2009 7:02 AM PDT
McCain Moves to Block FCC Net Neutrality
The FCC voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with the debate in an effort to formalize net neutrality guidelines. Senator John McCain followed up by introducing a bill that would prohibit the FCC from governing communications.
In the wake of FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's initial announcement of his intent to pursue formal net neutrality rules, a group of GOP lawmakers already initiated a similar attempt. However, that amendment was retracted almost as quickly as it was filed.
McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, seeks to do the opposite of what its name implies by ensuring that broadband and wireless providers can discriminate and throttle certain traffic while giving preferential treatment to other traffic. Basically, those in power or those who pay more will have better access. Apparently we have different definitions of ‘freedom'.
According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." Isn't that what the FCC does? Isn't that sort of like introducing a bill to prohibit the Treasury from printing money, or a bill to prohibit the IRS from collecting taxes?
Oddly, the bill also contains text stating that any regulations in effect on the day before the Internet Freedom Act is officially enacted are grandfathered in and exempt from the provisions of the Internet Freedom Act. The implication seems to be that if the FCC can formalize net neutrality rules before McCain can get the Internet Freedom Act signed into law, the net neutrality rules would still apply.
Net neutrality opponents claim that the free market can police itself and that any net neutrality restrictions will stifle innovation and competition. However, Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and only changed policy after the threat of FCC net neutrality rules. AT&T sought to block customers from using VoIP services from its wireless network, but changed policy out of fear of the net neutrality rules. The trend seems to be that these providers only do the ‘right thing' when the net neutrality gun is pointing at their head.
What the FCC voted on yesterday is simply to start the debate. Its an open discussion, so what are net neutrality opponents afraid of? They have 120 days to gather information and collect data and present their case. If there are valid issues that need to be resolved, then go ahead and bring them to the table. Don't initiate legislation that seeks to pretend the table doesn't exist.
During the Presidential election campaign last year the differences between the two candidates was stark. While Obama was attached surgically to his CrackBerry and his staff leveraged social media from their Macbooks, McCain admitted having little or no knowledge or interest in modern technologies like email or the Internet.
It seems suspicious that the Internet is suddenly a major concern for him. Maybe he just missed seeing his name in the paper.
Tony Bradley is an information security and unified communications expert with more than a decade of enterprise IT experience. He tweets as @PCSecurityNews and provides tips, advice and reviews on information security and unified communications technologies on his site at tonybradley.com. | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 8:30:56 AM | Ace lots of words written on this topic including that yawner article you posted. let's focus, focus unlike that glass-jawed president you libtards gave us, focus on what really MIGHT be the issue at hand.
1. National Security. I've not seen compelling arguments that this is part of the agenda, and I'd even entertain that we don't want to say too much about the topic for national security reasons.
2. Quash political dissent. The Fairness Doctrine, as Orwellian a misnomer as ever passed the lips of a leftist statist, is certainly smoke if not fire. again this clueless charm boy with Chicago thug tendencies new enemies list should be a clue even to you (your poet laureate at work).
3. Monetize the internet. Frankly I think 1 and 2 above are possible but this is certain. The internet was allowed to flourish with minimal tax payments to fed state and local authorities until it got a foothold. I think it fair to say eBusiness more and has a foothold.
As you can see from my ideas, only #2 is objectionable. Of course you libtards get tingly legged at the thought of more control and the "net neutrality" must appeal to your sense you couldn't win a war of ideas with anyone except innocent school children singing "mmmm mmm mm Barack Hussein Ozero" | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 8:44:38 AM | 1. I think we spend quite enough of our tax dollars on boondoggles justified by calls for "national security." When you contards get a handle on the wasteful spending and the unethical and unbecoming behavior of your team, we can talk. But honestly, I think y'all do as much harm as you do good, and are breaking us in the process.
2. Pfft. Simply bullshit and you know it.
3. I actually have no problem with this. Though I do like skipping taxes, to the extent that the Internet is harming local businesses, that tax break might be a bad rule. As long as all customers are charged the same rate and the only discounts are by volume or duration of contract, I have no problem with the idea of service providers making profits.
Net neutrality isn't about guaranteeing an audience. It is about making sure that no one can hold your audience hostage. Of course, when the libtards get control of the major ISPs and start shutting off access to contard sites and charging extra fees for contard e-business transactions, you might want to reconsider your corporatist stance. It could wind up working against you.
Be careful what you wish for. Are you really that much of an idiot? | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 9:26:29 AM | only on the points we agree on lol
Seriously you need to reconsider point 2 in respect to the speech police. It's quite extraordinary the amount of suppression of idea by libtards...."the debate is over on ___________________. These authoritarian tendencies are surprising to me and my level of shock at lefty ignorance is nearly set to full. | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 11:57:54 AM | When I can call in to Rush to voice my disagreement with whatever the f it is he's spouting this time, we can talk.
BTW, I don't like the closed-mindedness of the extreme left either. But then, they don't claim to stand for liberty and free speech while suppressing it and using every opportunity to demean those with different views.
The only reason I take swats at you is because you clearly seem to enjoy it. When you show respect, I do too. | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 12:42:00 PM |
But then, they don't claim to stand for liberty and free speech while suppressing it and using every opportunity to demean those with different views.
I think you're confusing two different things. Conservatives DO strongly support the Constitution and its protection of speech--against infringement by government. In contrast, many people in this administration and their supporters do not. And these closet fascists often show their antidemocratic streak as individuals, by trying to shut everyone else up.
I personally dislike people like that, and I don't feel I owe them the usual courtesies. They *deserve* to be showed up for the brownshirts they are. If they end up being demeaned in the process, that's just too d--- bad. Someone who lives in America yet is so thoroughly anti-American shouldn't expect any better. | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 1:10:25 PM | Well, when you paint ALL liberals with that brush and dismiss everything that we have to say as a communist plot, you poison the well.
They are just extremists with closed minds. What are you when you behave like that? | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 2:52:17 PM |
Well, when you paint ALL liberals with that brush and dismiss everything that we have to say as a communist plot, you poison the well.
I don't see that I did. I have no idea how referring to "many people in this administration and their supporters" means anything like what you're claiming. Please don't try to make me responsible for what you choose to imagine. | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 3:03:44 PM | | No, not you personally, but in the rhetoric of the Right in general any criticism of our shortcomings as a society is treated as communist propaganda first. You allude to that idea yourself from time to time. | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 3:42:27 PM | | That's because much of it comes from people who've made clear for a long time, by their words and actions, that they hate the United States. Knowing that, why would any reasonable person think that any statement they made about the U.S. was just constructive criticism? Exactly what has someone like William Ayres or Ward Churchill said or done, I wonder, that suggests he means this country any good? About as much, I'd say, as Jihad Johnny or Adam the American, only without actually going abroad to engage in outright treason. | |
|
| It could be worse
Posted: 10/23/2009 3:45:30 PM | | It would help, I think, if you made it clear that you are not talking about those who have legitimate and constructive concerns--those who hate the shortcomings but not the country. Otherwise, your remarks get interpreted globally along with all the other red-baiters who have historically set the context for discussion as "patriots" vs. "pinkos." | |
|
Home
login 
